Del Mar: McClain case against school district moves
forward
Del Mar Times
By Marsha Sutton
Contributor
A San Diego Superior Court ruling [by Judge William R. Nevitt] on Friday [March
4, 2011] granted a motion to strike attorneys’ fees from the wrongful termination
lawsuit filed against the Del Mar Union School District by former superintendent
Sharon McClain, who was hired by the DMUSD in September 2008 and released
March 31, 2010.
“This was a motion to strike attorneys’ fees that the district filed, and it
was granted,” said Ryan Church, an attorney with the law firm of Stutz
Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, which represents the school district on this case.
“She wanted attorneys’ fees under government code section 800, so the court has
now struck those,” Church said, “so she would not be entitled to attorneys’ fees
under that government code. It’s not a major motion. It just takes out a portion of a
complaint.”
Church said the motion was unopposed by McClain and her attorney.
McClain’s attorney, Los Angeles-based Dale Gronemeier, said he chose
not to challenge the motion “because they’re correct.” He said he expected
this motion and said McClain is now “pretty well barred from getting attorneys’
fees.”
But Gronemeier said McClain gains something by not challenging the motion. “In
order to take this position, they have to give up another position,” he said.
The original complaint, filed Sept. 17, 2010, named the DMUSD and four
individuals as defendants: attorney Dan Shinoff, former DMUSD trustees Annette
Easton and Katherine White, and current trustee Doug Perkins.
The First Amended Complaint, filed Oct. 8, 2010, removed the four individuals’
names, leaving the DMUSD as the sole defendant.
Gronemeier said the only liability the individuals would have would be under
federal law under the reconstruction Civil Rights Act. “We made a decision that the
burden of trying to prove that was too much,” he said.
However, all five names continue to appear on the case, Church said, because
the original captions remain even after amended complaints are filed. “It will
always say all of those people, regardless of whether they’ve been dismissed or
not,” he said. “The court never wants you to change a caption.”
To date there have been no further amendments to the original complaint. Church
said the operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint.
The complaint states that around August 2009, a majority of board members
“began to disregard that contractual division of labor and interfere with Dr.
McClain’s areas of responsibilities by trying to micro-manage DMUSD.”
A portion of the complaint reads: “Because Dr. McClain did not roll over and
accept the foregoing usurpation of her responsibilities by the board
majority, the board majority, in or about August 2009, began implementing
a scheme or plan to try to pressure Dr. McClain to voluntarily resign.”
McClain also charged that the board failed to specify in writing or orally the basis
for her termination.
She claimed the DMUSD breached her employment agreement on a number of
grounds, calling the conduct of the DMUSD “arbitrary and capricious.”
McClain is asking for monetary compensation she said was owed and never paid
during her employment with the district, and for future wages after termination
“through trial or according to proof at trial.” She is also asking for 30 percent of
the aforementioned compensation for lost benefits, compensation for future losses
in retirement income, and “for such other relief as the court deems just and
proper.”
Moving to trial
Gronemeier said the next step is a case management conference on March 25 at
which time a trial date will likely be set. He also wants a referee appointed to
expedite some details. “We have a lot of battles over pre-trial discovery,”
he said.
In addition, he filed a motion for summary adjudication, which is
scheduled for May 20, and will determine whether the district gave McClain
proper termination notice. This is the motion that put into the public record the
board’s evaluation of her performance and a letter of reprimand, to show that the
district did not give McClain proper notice, he said. At the same time, Gronemeier
also released a 57-page rebuttal from McClain, which seeks to counter point by
point the criticisms in the evaluation.
Church said a case management conference is attended by both parties’
attorneys and typically “lasts about a minute.” He said there will likely be more
documents released in the discovery phase, most of which “will ultimately
become public through the court system unless there’s some type of
protective order and there has not been one at this point.”
Gronemeier said he has contacted Dan Shinoff, the district’s lead
attorney on this case, to discuss using a private mediator to resolve the
dispute. “I’ve been advocating that, [but] I haven’t gotten an answer as to
whether they’re willing to do it,” he said.
He said he favors mediation because “you usually get better results than some of
the other alternatives available.” He said the law encourages it, and litigation is
expensive and time-consuming. “So yeah, we would like to see that,” he said.
DMUSD superintendent Jim Peabody said the district spent about $12,762 on
legal fees on the McClain case in 2010: $9,036 through March 31 when she was
released, and $3,726 from April 1 through Oct. 1.
The district has litigation insurance, he said, which covers all legal and litigation
fees once a lawsuit is filed, less a $1,000 deductible. The insurance carrier is the
San Diego County Schools Risk Management Joint Powers Authority. The district’s
annual premium is $21,808.
Peabody said it was good news that the motion to strike attorneys’ fee was
granted, and next steps will be setting a trial date and responding to McClain’s
request for mediation.
Documents released
Documents released last week related to the wrongful termination lawsuit filed
against the Del Mar Union School District by former superintendent Sharon
McClain included an evaluation of McClain’s performance by the school board and
a 57-page rebuttal to the evaluation written by McClain, who was hired by the
DMUSD in September 2008 and released March 31, 2010.
The district’s evaluation, written in September 2009, charged that McClain’s
performance constituted a “breach of material terms” of the contract and cited
deficiencies, willful neglect, failure to uphold contract provisions, and a “general
inability to be effective.”
Specifically, the evaluation cited gross negligence in reference to former assistant
superintendent of curriculum and instruction, Janet Bernard, whom McClain
attempted to transfer to another position, assistant superintendent of human
resources.
In her rebuttal, McClain called this a “sound decision” and said Bernard
“enthusiastically embraced the idea.”
But Bernard said this was not true and that she never told McClain she wanted to
move to human resources. “I was dumbfounded,” she said.
“I was so caught off-guard by it. I didn’t have a chance to say anything. She just
gave me a direct order. I never embraced the idea.”
Bernard said she replied that she wanted a night to think about it, but it was
announced that day. “She said there’s no discussion. This is where you’re going,”
Bernard said. “No one would ever want to be told that they’re completely changing
positions in two minutes and then it’s announced to the entire community.”
Bernard, who served as the district’s interim superintendent from February 2008
when former superintendent Tom Bishop was released by the board until McClain
was hired in September 2008, was particularly upset about McClain’s reference to
“significant dissension in the district about Janet’s leadership.”
Bernard said she never heard anything like that from board members, the former
superintendent, or other staff. “I think she just wanted me out of the way,” she said.
Former trustee Annette Easton was reluctant to comment on the references to
Bernard in the evaluation and rebuttal, even though both have been made public,
because they were originally closed session documents. She did say, though, that
a formal complaint about the performance of an employee would require that the
employee be notified of a closed session discussion on their performance.
“There was never an agenda item that occurred in which Janet was notified that
her performance was under review,” Easton said.
Easton also said she had never heard any complaints about Bernard’s leadership
from staff or community members.
“The board really appreciaed Janet stepping up and serving as our interim during
the period that she did,” Easton said.
“My reputation means everything to me,” Bernard said. “I just want my name
cleared.”
Undermining the board
Other items mentioned in the evaluation included criticism of McClain for
announcing a recommended candidate for a high-level position on a public
agenda before discussing it with the board, which put trustees “in the position of
publicly disagreeing with you instead of allowing personnel conversation to remain
confidential.”
McClain responded that the public posting “was in line with current practice in the
DMUSD” and that it was “common practice to present the names of individuals
recommended for employment in the public agenda.”
The evaluation further charged that McClain undermined the school board and
damaged the board’s reputation in the community. “You have positioned yourself
as fighting against the board instead of being part of a governance team” and
“that you complain about the board both internally and externally,” the evaluation
read.
McClain denied this, responding that she “worked diligently with the board to
promote a unity of purpose” and “consistently respected the board as the
representative of the community.”
The evaluation criticized McClain for attending too many conferences that they
said interfered with her performance of duties. McClain said the conferences were
“crucial for further professional development” and “absolutely necessary for me to
be a good superintendent.”
The evaluation also cited her alleged improper handling of the 7-11 committee,
error-prone postings of public notices, disregard for openness and transparency,
questionable use and selection of outside consultants, concerns at Del Mar Hills
Academy, poor forward planning, lack of communication with board members,
insufficient preparation for teacher contract negotiations, unresponsiveness to
board questions, failure to update the board on key developments, and other
matters.
McClain took on each point in detail in her rebuttal, saying she provided strong
leadership, vision, attention to detail, effective management skills, goals and
objectives, backup material on agenda items, a focus on collaboration, and clear
analyses of district concerns. She also said she worked without sufficient board
feedback, coped with weekly rather than monthly board meetings, supported
demoralized staff, and confronted serious issues in the district successfully,
including the education foundation structure, enrichment programs, the ongoing
budget crisis, district office facility needs, and equity.
Naming names
McClain listed a number of “key developments” about which she said she informed
the board, in response to trustees’ criticism of her lack of communication. The
issues included school reports of a lockdown, a suspected explosive device, an
emergency evacuation, a police investigation, water contamination, passout
games, whooping cough, and a student with a seizure.
One item listed was a report “of a fifth-grade student from Del Mar Heights School
who was taken to the hospital by ambulance because he told office staff he had
taken cocaine.” McClain wrote that the incident happened June 9, 2009, a
Tuesday.
But Wendy Wardlow, principal of Del Mar Heighs School, said that didn’t happen.
“There was no student who reported taking cocaine on campus,” she said. “There
was no ambulance that was called to the school.”
Wardlow said there was a sixth-grade student who thought he had ingested
something at home on a Saturday. Paramedics came to the private house but the
child was found to be fine, she said.
Remedies were suggested in the evaluation, but board members wrote that they
“have serious reservations” about McClain’s abilities.
Trustees referenced search firm principals Frank Cosca and Ken Noonan from
The Cosca Group who were part of the team that selected McClain. Trustees said
Cosca and Noonan “raised repeated concerns regarding the toxic relationship”
and indicated that she was “not willing or able” to recognize the need to make
adjustments.
McClain, in her rebuttal, challenged these remarks by Cosca and Noonan, saying
she contacted them and they denied making these statements.
The performance review close with the statement, “This evaluation has the
endorsement of the entire board.” Signatures of all five board members were
included: Annette Easton, Steven McDowell, Doug Perkins, Comischell Rodriguez
and Katherine White.
The vote seven months later to terminate McClain’s employment, however, was
not unanimous but was 3-1-1, with Rodriguez opposed and McDowell abstaining.
McDowell, Easton and White no longer serve as trustees. Rodriguez, who
currently serves as school board president, would not comment on the case,
although she did comment on the inclusion in the documents of the names of a
number of district employees.
“About my thoughts on the release of the evaluation and rebuttal by Sharon,”
Rodriguez said in an email, “I will say that I don’t believe it was very nice. As a
matter of practice in the DMUSD, we protect our employee evaluations and we will
continue to do so.”
“There was surprise that the names were not redacted before it was released,”
said Jim Peabody, DMUSD superintendent.
Regarding the lack of redaction in the rebuttal, Dale Gronemeier, McClain’s
attorney, said, “I guess we didn’t see a compelling reason to do that.”
[Maura Larkins comment: In an interview regarding this case, DMUSD
attorney Dan Shinoff said everything would come out in a lawsuit. And
that's exactly how it's supposed to be.]
forward
Del Mar Times
By Marsha Sutton
Contributor
A San Diego Superior Court ruling [by Judge William R. Nevitt] on Friday [March
4, 2011] granted a motion to strike attorneys’ fees from the wrongful termination
lawsuit filed against the Del Mar Union School District by former superintendent
Sharon McClain, who was hired by the DMUSD in September 2008 and released
March 31, 2010.
“This was a motion to strike attorneys’ fees that the district filed, and it
was granted,” said Ryan Church, an attorney with the law firm of Stutz
Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, which represents the school district on this case.
“She wanted attorneys’ fees under government code section 800, so the court has
now struck those,” Church said, “so she would not be entitled to attorneys’ fees
under that government code. It’s not a major motion. It just takes out a portion of a
complaint.”
Church said the motion was unopposed by McClain and her attorney.
McClain’s attorney, Los Angeles-based Dale Gronemeier, said he chose
not to challenge the motion “because they’re correct.” He said he expected
this motion and said McClain is now “pretty well barred from getting attorneys’
fees.”
But Gronemeier said McClain gains something by not challenging the motion. “In
order to take this position, they have to give up another position,” he said.
The original complaint, filed Sept. 17, 2010, named the DMUSD and four
individuals as defendants: attorney Dan Shinoff, former DMUSD trustees Annette
Easton and Katherine White, and current trustee Doug Perkins.
The First Amended Complaint, filed Oct. 8, 2010, removed the four individuals’
names, leaving the DMUSD as the sole defendant.
Gronemeier said the only liability the individuals would have would be under
federal law under the reconstruction Civil Rights Act. “We made a decision that the
burden of trying to prove that was too much,” he said.
However, all five names continue to appear on the case, Church said, because
the original captions remain even after amended complaints are filed. “It will
always say all of those people, regardless of whether they’ve been dismissed or
not,” he said. “The court never wants you to change a caption.”
To date there have been no further amendments to the original complaint. Church
said the operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint.
The complaint states that around August 2009, a majority of board members
“began to disregard that contractual division of labor and interfere with Dr.
McClain’s areas of responsibilities by trying to micro-manage DMUSD.”
A portion of the complaint reads: “Because Dr. McClain did not roll over and
accept the foregoing usurpation of her responsibilities by the board
majority, the board majority, in or about August 2009, began implementing
a scheme or plan to try to pressure Dr. McClain to voluntarily resign.”
McClain also charged that the board failed to specify in writing or orally the basis
for her termination.
She claimed the DMUSD breached her employment agreement on a number of
grounds, calling the conduct of the DMUSD “arbitrary and capricious.”
McClain is asking for monetary compensation she said was owed and never paid
during her employment with the district, and for future wages after termination
“through trial or according to proof at trial.” She is also asking for 30 percent of
the aforementioned compensation for lost benefits, compensation for future losses
in retirement income, and “for such other relief as the court deems just and
proper.”
Moving to trial
Gronemeier said the next step is a case management conference on March 25 at
which time a trial date will likely be set. He also wants a referee appointed to
expedite some details. “We have a lot of battles over pre-trial discovery,”
he said.
In addition, he filed a motion for summary adjudication, which is
scheduled for May 20, and will determine whether the district gave McClain
proper termination notice. This is the motion that put into the public record the
board’s evaluation of her performance and a letter of reprimand, to show that the
district did not give McClain proper notice, he said. At the same time, Gronemeier
also released a 57-page rebuttal from McClain, which seeks to counter point by
point the criticisms in the evaluation.
Church said a case management conference is attended by both parties’
attorneys and typically “lasts about a minute.” He said there will likely be more
documents released in the discovery phase, most of which “will ultimately
become public through the court system unless there’s some type of
protective order and there has not been one at this point.”
Gronemeier said he has contacted Dan Shinoff, the district’s lead
attorney on this case, to discuss using a private mediator to resolve the
dispute. “I’ve been advocating that, [but] I haven’t gotten an answer as to
whether they’re willing to do it,” he said.
He said he favors mediation because “you usually get better results than some of
the other alternatives available.” He said the law encourages it, and litigation is
expensive and time-consuming. “So yeah, we would like to see that,” he said.
DMUSD superintendent Jim Peabody said the district spent about $12,762 on
legal fees on the McClain case in 2010: $9,036 through March 31 when she was
released, and $3,726 from April 1 through Oct. 1.
The district has litigation insurance, he said, which covers all legal and litigation
fees once a lawsuit is filed, less a $1,000 deductible. The insurance carrier is the
San Diego County Schools Risk Management Joint Powers Authority. The district’s
annual premium is $21,808.
Peabody said it was good news that the motion to strike attorneys’ fee was
granted, and next steps will be setting a trial date and responding to McClain’s
request for mediation.
Documents released
Documents released last week related to the wrongful termination lawsuit filed
against the Del Mar Union School District by former superintendent Sharon
McClain included an evaluation of McClain’s performance by the school board and
a 57-page rebuttal to the evaluation written by McClain, who was hired by the
DMUSD in September 2008 and released March 31, 2010.
The district’s evaluation, written in September 2009, charged that McClain’s
performance constituted a “breach of material terms” of the contract and cited
deficiencies, willful neglect, failure to uphold contract provisions, and a “general
inability to be effective.”
Specifically, the evaluation cited gross negligence in reference to former assistant
superintendent of curriculum and instruction, Janet Bernard, whom McClain
attempted to transfer to another position, assistant superintendent of human
resources.
In her rebuttal, McClain called this a “sound decision” and said Bernard
“enthusiastically embraced the idea.”
But Bernard said this was not true and that she never told McClain she wanted to
move to human resources. “I was dumbfounded,” she said.
“I was so caught off-guard by it. I didn’t have a chance to say anything. She just
gave me a direct order. I never embraced the idea.”
Bernard said she replied that she wanted a night to think about it, but it was
announced that day. “She said there’s no discussion. This is where you’re going,”
Bernard said. “No one would ever want to be told that they’re completely changing
positions in two minutes and then it’s announced to the entire community.”
Bernard, who served as the district’s interim superintendent from February 2008
when former superintendent Tom Bishop was released by the board until McClain
was hired in September 2008, was particularly upset about McClain’s reference to
“significant dissension in the district about Janet’s leadership.”
Bernard said she never heard anything like that from board members, the former
superintendent, or other staff. “I think she just wanted me out of the way,” she said.
Former trustee Annette Easton was reluctant to comment on the references to
Bernard in the evaluation and rebuttal, even though both have been made public,
because they were originally closed session documents. She did say, though, that
a formal complaint about the performance of an employee would require that the
employee be notified of a closed session discussion on their performance.
“There was never an agenda item that occurred in which Janet was notified that
her performance was under review,” Easton said.
Easton also said she had never heard any complaints about Bernard’s leadership
from staff or community members.
“The board really appreciaed Janet stepping up and serving as our interim during
the period that she did,” Easton said.
“My reputation means everything to me,” Bernard said. “I just want my name
cleared.”
Undermining the board
Other items mentioned in the evaluation included criticism of McClain for
announcing a recommended candidate for a high-level position on a public
agenda before discussing it with the board, which put trustees “in the position of
publicly disagreeing with you instead of allowing personnel conversation to remain
confidential.”
McClain responded that the public posting “was in line with current practice in the
DMUSD” and that it was “common practice to present the names of individuals
recommended for employment in the public agenda.”
The evaluation further charged that McClain undermined the school board and
damaged the board’s reputation in the community. “You have positioned yourself
as fighting against the board instead of being part of a governance team” and
“that you complain about the board both internally and externally,” the evaluation
read.
McClain denied this, responding that she “worked diligently with the board to
promote a unity of purpose” and “consistently respected the board as the
representative of the community.”
The evaluation criticized McClain for attending too many conferences that they
said interfered with her performance of duties. McClain said the conferences were
“crucial for further professional development” and “absolutely necessary for me to
be a good superintendent.”
The evaluation also cited her alleged improper handling of the 7-11 committee,
error-prone postings of public notices, disregard for openness and transparency,
questionable use and selection of outside consultants, concerns at Del Mar Hills
Academy, poor forward planning, lack of communication with board members,
insufficient preparation for teacher contract negotiations, unresponsiveness to
board questions, failure to update the board on key developments, and other
matters.
McClain took on each point in detail in her rebuttal, saying she provided strong
leadership, vision, attention to detail, effective management skills, goals and
objectives, backup material on agenda items, a focus on collaboration, and clear
analyses of district concerns. She also said she worked without sufficient board
feedback, coped with weekly rather than monthly board meetings, supported
demoralized staff, and confronted serious issues in the district successfully,
including the education foundation structure, enrichment programs, the ongoing
budget crisis, district office facility needs, and equity.
Naming names
McClain listed a number of “key developments” about which she said she informed
the board, in response to trustees’ criticism of her lack of communication. The
issues included school reports of a lockdown, a suspected explosive device, an
emergency evacuation, a police investigation, water contamination, passout
games, whooping cough, and a student with a seizure.
One item listed was a report “of a fifth-grade student from Del Mar Heights School
who was taken to the hospital by ambulance because he told office staff he had
taken cocaine.” McClain wrote that the incident happened June 9, 2009, a
Tuesday.
But Wendy Wardlow, principal of Del Mar Heighs School, said that didn’t happen.
“There was no student who reported taking cocaine on campus,” she said. “There
was no ambulance that was called to the school.”
Wardlow said there was a sixth-grade student who thought he had ingested
something at home on a Saturday. Paramedics came to the private house but the
child was found to be fine, she said.
Remedies were suggested in the evaluation, but board members wrote that they
“have serious reservations” about McClain’s abilities.
Trustees referenced search firm principals Frank Cosca and Ken Noonan from
The Cosca Group who were part of the team that selected McClain. Trustees said
Cosca and Noonan “raised repeated concerns regarding the toxic relationship”
and indicated that she was “not willing or able” to recognize the need to make
adjustments.
McClain, in her rebuttal, challenged these remarks by Cosca and Noonan, saying
she contacted them and they denied making these statements.
The performance review close with the statement, “This evaluation has the
endorsement of the entire board.” Signatures of all five board members were
included: Annette Easton, Steven McDowell, Doug Perkins, Comischell Rodriguez
and Katherine White.
The vote seven months later to terminate McClain’s employment, however, was
not unanimous but was 3-1-1, with Rodriguez opposed and McDowell abstaining.
McDowell, Easton and White no longer serve as trustees. Rodriguez, who
currently serves as school board president, would not comment on the case,
although she did comment on the inclusion in the documents of the names of a
number of district employees.
“About my thoughts on the release of the evaluation and rebuttal by Sharon,”
Rodriguez said in an email, “I will say that I don’t believe it was very nice. As a
matter of practice in the DMUSD, we protect our employee evaluations and we will
continue to do so.”
“There was surprise that the names were not redacted before it was released,”
said Jim Peabody, DMUSD superintendent.
Regarding the lack of redaction in the rebuttal, Dale Gronemeier, McClain’s
attorney, said, “I guess we didn’t see a compelling reason to do that.”
[Maura Larkins comment: In an interview regarding this case, DMUSD
attorney Dan Shinoff said everything would come out in a lawsuit. And
that's exactly how it's supposed to be.]
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Fired superintendent's evaluation was scathing
By Jonathan Horn
SDUT
March 3, 2011
Six months before she was fired in March 2010, then Del Mar schools
Superintendent Sharon McClain received a scathing evaluation signed by all
five of the district’s trustees, outlining a toxic relationship between her and the
board.
The nine-page evaluation recently was filed with the court system in
connection with McClain’s wrongful termination lawsuit against the Del Mar
Union School District. Trustees have repeatedly declined to answer questions
as to why they fired McClain, citing her lawsuit. The evaluation, however,
provides some insight as to what could have been behind the decision.
Download: Sharon McClain's 2009 Evaluation
Download: Sharon McClain's rebuttal to evaluation
“You are openly hostile to the current Board President, you complain to Board
members about other Board members, and you complain to District staff about
the Board,” the evaluation says. “You have positioned yourself as fighting
against the Board instead of being part of a governance team.”
McClain submitted a 57-page rebuttal to the evaluation. The U-T obtained a
copy of the rebuttal through her attorney, Dale Gronemeier. McClain wrote
she actually declined to support a board recall effort when approached by a
parent in January 2009, and repeatedly defended the board when asked by
reporters about perceived trustee micromanagement.
“I want and hope to improve the relationship with the board during the next
three years of my contract,” McClain wrote in her response dated October
2009. “However, I must admit that I am concerned after reading and
responding to the Evaluation, that the Board’s current commitment is to
continually search for problems with my performance in order to terminate my
contract.”
Trustees voted 3-1-1 to fire McClain on March 31, 2010, in a meeting called
two days earlier. Despite the late notice, parents packed the Del Mar Hills
Academy auditorium, and all 29 speakers voiced support for McClain. They
called on the trustees to resign, accusing them of micromanagement, and
gave McClain a standing ovation.
The board also fired McClain’s predecessor, Tom Bishop, in 2008, paying him
a $300,000 settlement.
McClain’s lawsuit is scheduled to continue Friday with a hearing in San Diego
Superior Court. McClain contends she was not given proper cause for her
dismissal and that she should have received 30 days’ notice instead of two if
not given a cause. She is asking for one year’s salary of $178,000, $15,000 in
retirement funds and punitive damages.
The makeup of the five-member board of trustees has changed since the
firings. Three new members were voted onto the panel in November. Trustees
Katherine White and Annette Easton, who voted to fire McClain, did not seek
re-election. Trustee Steven McDowell, who abstained from the vote to fire
McClain, lost his bid for re-election. Trustee Doug Perkins, who voted to fire
McClain, and board President Comischell Rodriguez, the only one who voted
against the firing, are in the middle of their terms.
White, Easton and McDowell voted to hire McClain out of 20 other candidates
on a three-year contract in summer 2008. Dan Shinoff, the school district’s
attorney, did not return a call or e-mail seeking comment.
The evaluation cites several instances of friction between the board and
McClain. It said McClain was unavailable to the board to discuss district issues,
that she did not provide accurate information with various committees, and did
not post timely board meeting agendas. It said she also dismissed the board
members’ questions or did not answer them quickly, and her participation in
conferences interfered with her ability to perform her everyday duties.
McClain responded that she sent more than 1,000 e-mails to board members
keeping them apprised and that 42 of the 44 agendas were posted on time.
McClain wrote that board members often acted individually and not as a whole,
such as when they would drop in unannounced and divert individual staff
members to work on their own questions. McClain wrote it became clear two
trustees did not involve other board members in a plan to reduce the district’s
extended studies curriculum when other trustees expressed confusion over
the issue at a meeting. White and McDowell each declined to comment when
reached by phone.
The evaluation said some of McClain’s activities exposed the district to
potential litigation.
She received a letter of formal reprimand, dated Jan. 15, 2010, which said she
violated federal privacy law by allowing her assistant to listen-in on a phone
call with a parent over a disciplinary issue. McClain vehemently denied that
accusation in a separate rebuttal to that letter, saying it is impossible with the
phone system for someone else to listen in, and instead that her assistant’s
office door was open, as was McClain’s.
By Jonathan Horn
SDUT
March 3, 2011
Six months before she was fired in March 2010, then Del Mar schools
Superintendent Sharon McClain received a scathing evaluation signed by all
five of the district’s trustees, outlining a toxic relationship between her and the
board.
The nine-page evaluation recently was filed with the court system in
connection with McClain’s wrongful termination lawsuit against the Del Mar
Union School District. Trustees have repeatedly declined to answer questions
as to why they fired McClain, citing her lawsuit. The evaluation, however,
provides some insight as to what could have been behind the decision.
Download: Sharon McClain's 2009 Evaluation
Download: Sharon McClain's rebuttal to evaluation
“You are openly hostile to the current Board President, you complain to Board
members about other Board members, and you complain to District staff about
the Board,” the evaluation says. “You have positioned yourself as fighting
against the Board instead of being part of a governance team.”
McClain submitted a 57-page rebuttal to the evaluation. The U-T obtained a
copy of the rebuttal through her attorney, Dale Gronemeier. McClain wrote
she actually declined to support a board recall effort when approached by a
parent in January 2009, and repeatedly defended the board when asked by
reporters about perceived trustee micromanagement.
“I want and hope to improve the relationship with the board during the next
three years of my contract,” McClain wrote in her response dated October
2009. “However, I must admit that I am concerned after reading and
responding to the Evaluation, that the Board’s current commitment is to
continually search for problems with my performance in order to terminate my
contract.”
Trustees voted 3-1-1 to fire McClain on March 31, 2010, in a meeting called
two days earlier. Despite the late notice, parents packed the Del Mar Hills
Academy auditorium, and all 29 speakers voiced support for McClain. They
called on the trustees to resign, accusing them of micromanagement, and
gave McClain a standing ovation.
The board also fired McClain’s predecessor, Tom Bishop, in 2008, paying him
a $300,000 settlement.
McClain’s lawsuit is scheduled to continue Friday with a hearing in San Diego
Superior Court. McClain contends she was not given proper cause for her
dismissal and that she should have received 30 days’ notice instead of two if
not given a cause. She is asking for one year’s salary of $178,000, $15,000 in
retirement funds and punitive damages.
The makeup of the five-member board of trustees has changed since the
firings. Three new members were voted onto the panel in November. Trustees
Katherine White and Annette Easton, who voted to fire McClain, did not seek
re-election. Trustee Steven McDowell, who abstained from the vote to fire
McClain, lost his bid for re-election. Trustee Doug Perkins, who voted to fire
McClain, and board President Comischell Rodriguez, the only one who voted
against the firing, are in the middle of their terms.
White, Easton and McDowell voted to hire McClain out of 20 other candidates
on a three-year contract in summer 2008. Dan Shinoff, the school district’s
attorney, did not return a call or e-mail seeking comment.
The evaluation cites several instances of friction between the board and
McClain. It said McClain was unavailable to the board to discuss district issues,
that she did not provide accurate information with various committees, and did
not post timely board meeting agendas. It said she also dismissed the board
members’ questions or did not answer them quickly, and her participation in
conferences interfered with her ability to perform her everyday duties.
McClain responded that she sent more than 1,000 e-mails to board members
keeping them apprised and that 42 of the 44 agendas were posted on time.
McClain wrote that board members often acted individually and not as a whole,
such as when they would drop in unannounced and divert individual staff
members to work on their own questions. McClain wrote it became clear two
trustees did not involve other board members in a plan to reduce the district’s
extended studies curriculum when other trustees expressed confusion over
the issue at a meeting. White and McDowell each declined to comment when
reached by phone.
The evaluation said some of McClain’s activities exposed the district to
potential litigation.
She received a letter of formal reprimand, dated Jan. 15, 2010, which said she
violated federal privacy law by allowing her assistant to listen-in on a phone
call with a parent over a disciplinary issue. McClain vehemently denied that
accusation in a separate rebuttal to that letter, saying it is impossible with the
phone system for someone else to listen in, and instead that her assistant’s
office door was open, as was McClain’s.
Sharon McClain v.
DMUSD Lawsuit by fired
superintendent
SHARON MCCLAIN ED D
VS. DEL MAR UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2010-00100467-CU-WT-CTL
San Diego
Date Filed: 09/17/2010
CU-WT Wrongful
Termination
03/25/11 08:45AM C-64
Nevitt, William R. Jr.
Civil Case Mana
37-2010-00100467-CU-WT-CTL
D)Del Mar Union School Dist
Daniel R Shinoff
[Note March 21, 2011: This
case can not be found in a
party search of the court
index, but it did appear on the
court calendar. I found the
case by searching for the case
number. What is the motive
for this concealment? The
following appears instead of
the names of parties in the
case:
Plaintiff/Petitioner
Last Name or Business Name
First Name
Primary (P)
No party was found.
Defendant/Respondent
Last Name or Business Name
First Name
Primary (P)
No party was found.]
DMUSD Lawsuit by fired
superintendent
SHARON MCCLAIN ED D
VS. DEL MAR UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2010-00100467-CU-WT-CTL
San Diego
Date Filed: 09/17/2010
CU-WT Wrongful
Termination
03/25/11 08:45AM C-64
Nevitt, William R. Jr.
Civil Case Mana
37-2010-00100467-CU-WT-CTL
D)Del Mar Union School Dist
Daniel R Shinoff
[Note March 21, 2011: This
case can not be found in a
party search of the court
index, but it did appear on the
court calendar. I found the
case by searching for the case
number. What is the motive
for this concealment? The
following appears instead of
the names of parties in the
case:
Plaintiff/Petitioner
Last Name or Business Name
First Name
Primary (P)
No party was found.
Defendant/Respondent
Last Name or Business Name
First Name
Primary (P)
No party was found.]
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
SHARON MCCLAIN VS. DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
JUDICIAL OFFICER: William R. Nevitt Jr.
Wrongful Termination
37-2010-00100467-CU-WT-CTL
05/06/2011 Tentative Ruling re Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings:
...Defendant's [Del Mar Union School District's] motion for
judgment on the pleadings is:
(1) denied as to the
eighth ("Conversion"),
ninth ("Declaratory Relief – Notice Dispute") and
eleventh ("Declaratory Relief - §8E Dispute") causes of action
of the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"); and
(2) granted as to the FAC's
tenth ("Declaratory Relief – Legislative Privilege Bar").
As to the eight cause of action: The FAC adequately alleges conversion of past
wages due.
As to the ninth and eleventh causes of action: Each of these two causes of action
adequately alleges an actual controversy. It does not appear from the face of the
FAC that the "declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time
under all the circumstances" (CCP § 1061).
As to the tenth cause of action: It appears from the face of the FAC that the
"declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the
circumstances" (Code Civ. Proc., § 1061). (Cf. Jefferson, Inc. v. City of Torrance
(1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 300, 303 ["[J]udgments sustaining general demurrers to
declaratory relief actions have been upheld where the trial court, in effect, has
exercised its discretionary power to deny a declaration despite the existence of a
controversy 'where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at
the time under all the circumstances.' (Code Civ. Proc., §1061.)"].)
DISTRICT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
JUDICIAL OFFICER: William R. Nevitt Jr.
Wrongful Termination
37-2010-00100467-CU-WT-CTL
05/06/2011 Tentative Ruling re Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings:
...Defendant's [Del Mar Union School District's] motion for
judgment on the pleadings is:
(1) denied as to the
eighth ("Conversion"),
ninth ("Declaratory Relief – Notice Dispute") and
eleventh ("Declaratory Relief - §8E Dispute") causes of action
of the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"); and
(2) granted as to the FAC's
tenth ("Declaratory Relief – Legislative Privilege Bar").
As to the eight cause of action: The FAC adequately alleges conversion of past
wages due.
As to the ninth and eleventh causes of action: Each of these two causes of action
adequately alleges an actual controversy. It does not appear from the face of the
FAC that the "declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time
under all the circumstances" (CCP § 1061).
As to the tenth cause of action: It appears from the face of the FAC that the
"declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the
circumstances" (Code Civ. Proc., § 1061). (Cf. Jefferson, Inc. v. City of Torrance
(1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 300, 303 ["[J]udgments sustaining general demurrers to
declaratory relief actions have been upheld where the trial court, in effect, has
exercised its discretionary power to deny a declaration despite the existence of a
controversy 'where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at
the time under all the circumstances.' (Code Civ. Proc., §1061.)"].)
Register of Actions (ROA)
Case Number: 37-2010-00100467-CU-WT-CTL
Date Filed: 09/17/2010
Case Title: Sharon McClain Ed D vs. Del Mar Union School District
Location: Central
Case Type: Wrongful Termination
Judicial Officer: William R. Nevitt, Jr.
Representation
Del Mar Union School District, Defendant
Shinoff, Daniel R
McClain Ed D, Sharon, Plaintiff
Gronemeier, Dale L
GRONEMEIER & ASSOCIATES P C 1490 Colorado Boulevard Eagle Rock CA 90041
SHINOFF, DANIEL R
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ APC 2488 HISTORIC DECATUR ROAD SUITE
200 SAN DIEGO CA 92106 6113
04/29/2011
Minutes finalized for Motion Hearing (Civil) heard 04/29/2011 01:30:00 PM.
04/29/2011
Motion Hearing (Civil) continued pursuant to Court's motion to 05/06/2011 at
01:30PM before Judge William R. Nevitt, Jr..
04/28/2011
Tentative Ruling for Motion Hearing (Civil) published.
04/25/2011
Reply to Opposition of Noticed Motion and Supporting Declarations filed by Del Mar
Union School District. (Defendant)
04/18/2011
Opposition to Noticed Motion and Supporting Declarations filed by McClain Ed D,
Sharon. (Plaintiff)
04/01/2011
Notice of Motion and Supporting Declarations filed by Del Mar Union School District.
04/01/2011
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Del Mar Union School
District.
03/30/2011
Discovery Hearing scheduled for 07/15/2011 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-64
William R. Nevitt.
03/25/2011
Notice of Hearing SD generated.
03/25/2011
Minutes finalized for Civil Case Management Conference heard 03/25/2011
08:45:00 AM.
03/25/2011
Jury demanded by both parties.
03/25/2011
Civil Jury Trial scheduled for 11/04/2011 at 09:00AM before Judge William R. Nevitt,
Jr..
03/25/2011
Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) scheduled for 10/14/2011 at 10:00AM before
Judge William R. Nevitt, Jr..
03/23/2011
Notice of Motion and Supporting Declarations filed by Del Mar Union School District.
03/23/2011
Motion - Other (To Quash Deposition) filed
by Del Mar Union School District.
(Defendant)
Case Number: 37-2010-00100467-CU-WT-CTL
Date Filed: 09/17/2010
Case Title: Sharon McClain Ed D vs. Del Mar Union School District
Location: Central
Case Type: Wrongful Termination
Judicial Officer: William R. Nevitt, Jr.
Representation
Del Mar Union School District, Defendant
Shinoff, Daniel R
McClain Ed D, Sharon, Plaintiff
Gronemeier, Dale L
GRONEMEIER & ASSOCIATES P C 1490 Colorado Boulevard Eagle Rock CA 90041
SHINOFF, DANIEL R
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ APC 2488 HISTORIC DECATUR ROAD SUITE
200 SAN DIEGO CA 92106 6113
04/29/2011
Minutes finalized for Motion Hearing (Civil) heard 04/29/2011 01:30:00 PM.
04/29/2011
Motion Hearing (Civil) continued pursuant to Court's motion to 05/06/2011 at
01:30PM before Judge William R. Nevitt, Jr..
04/28/2011
Tentative Ruling for Motion Hearing (Civil) published.
04/25/2011
Reply to Opposition of Noticed Motion and Supporting Declarations filed by Del Mar
Union School District. (Defendant)
04/18/2011
Opposition to Noticed Motion and Supporting Declarations filed by McClain Ed D,
Sharon. (Plaintiff)
04/01/2011
Notice of Motion and Supporting Declarations filed by Del Mar Union School District.
04/01/2011
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Del Mar Union School
District.
03/30/2011
Discovery Hearing scheduled for 07/15/2011 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-64
William R. Nevitt.
03/25/2011
Notice of Hearing SD generated.
03/25/2011
Minutes finalized for Civil Case Management Conference heard 03/25/2011
08:45:00 AM.
03/25/2011
Jury demanded by both parties.
03/25/2011
Civil Jury Trial scheduled for 11/04/2011 at 09:00AM before Judge William R. Nevitt,
Jr..
03/25/2011
Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) scheduled for 10/14/2011 at 10:00AM before
Judge William R. Nevitt, Jr..
03/23/2011
Notice of Motion and Supporting Declarations filed by Del Mar Union School District.
03/23/2011
Motion - Other (To Quash Deposition) filed
by Del Mar Union School District.
(Defendant)